Is Premier League Football in danger of financial meltdown?

Not a day goes by it seems without another winding up order being placed upon a football club and yet here we are in the transfer window and all the press reports suggest another spending bonanza. The economy has had a hard time in the last 18 months yet football has appeared to have survived relatively unscathed but in truth it is a papering over the cracks exercise which in the last 6 months has come to a head. For example;

Portsmouth don’t appear to know who is owning the club, the wages are currently being paid late every month and now the Premier League are becoming shadow directors of the Club in taking television money and paying it to who they see fit. Three questions come to mind, firstly have the Premier League got the authority to do this, will they be paying out of their own funds any claims from a future administrator if it is decided that a preference has quite clearly taken place and  thirdly how do the Premier League’s Fit and Proper questionnaires work when clubs are changing hands?

Hull City are in a quandary resulting in a change of Chairman and a statement suggesting that the club is running at a loss each month and is currently unsalable. When you think about some clubs you can see exactly where the money has gone to make it make a loss month in month out but with Hull the number of expensive signings is on one hand with Jimmy Bullard the largest at £5M.

West Ham have been under pressure since Iceland hit the rocks and after selling the whole squad and rebuilding back in the mid noughties appear to face a similar predicament. On top of that the owners are valuing the club at a sum which puts off interested parties or takes too much of their potential investment to allow them, having bought, to develop the playing squad to make them secure for Premier League status once more.

Liverpool’s owners have been caught out by currency movements and the credit crunch leaving them needing to sell before investing further into the playing squad. Whilst Liverpool fans have slavishly “In Rafa we trust” the rest of us has been shaking our heads over some of their signings. It now appears clear. All can play in space and technical ability of the Champions League but are they good enough to get them there from the rough and tumble of the Premier League? We all now trust in Rafa not to qualify but he’ll probably scrape home!

Manchester United are a long term bearer of debt since the Glazer takeover but this has not stopped them making several large transfer payments Unfortunately because the Glazer’s didn’t have the money that doesn’t allow them to write off debt to shares without giving away control as Chelsea have just done. We are currently waiting for the Chelsea 2009 accounts to appear at Companies House to download and explain them to you.

Arsene Wenger thinks Chelsea are cheating by capitalising this debt but of late he has shown a tendency to get upset about things both on and off the pitch. The 2012 solvency rules are what have led to the share capitalisation at Stamford Bridge and maybe Arsene sees that Arsenal along with the majority of clubs will fail them. The Champions League may therefore become a European version of the Carling Cup in the future!

Arsenal themselves have had their own renegotiations with lenders over the slow take up of the Highbury flats. Those in the know tell me it is all settled now but Mr Wenger has for some time been cautious with the Club’s money with some spectacular results as the Premier League table currently shows. Despite comments made to suggest otherwise Chelsea still trade at a loss and can only continue from the owners support. They will still need to capitalise about £30M per season to keep the 30 June 2009 balance sheet position.

That brings us to my own club Spurs – the club that nearly disappeared in 1990 after getting it all wrong. Having spent hundreds of millions trying to get the team right we have recouped some spectacular fees from the sale of our best players. The Chairman realises we need a larger ground but can we afford it? I’ve never been convinced but I understand he told the AGM that the new ground will provide income of £3M per home game against a current amount of £1M. That is extremely interesting. 20,000 extra fans and £2M extra money. That seems a disproportionate amount of revenue from the extra fans so maybe Spurs will be able to afford it as long as the fans can afford it by paying a lot more to attend games.

To me Spurs are following a well trodden path and could if it does not come off go the same way of a number of others, most spectacularly Leeds United, in trying to do too much without adequate resources. Mr Levy’s biggest decision is whether he can afford to develop the club before embarking on the stadium or whether he passes it onto someone who can. It appears he hopes that selling naming rights on the stadium will be his saving grace and I am not sure how well this is going. Overall he has been a good Chairman but his poor decisions have been real stinkers (Glenn Hoddle as Manager as an example) so I hope that he chooses wisely on this occasion.

What all this shows is that the beautiful game that we all knew has long gone and corporate money has taken over. But has it? Some corporate money has been invested in the game but in the main it is still individuals with a particular interest in a club.

What we have is a lot of ex players earning a living from the game as pundits without any understanding as to how business works. They tell us that every club needs to spend fortunes on new players often to get the team to mid table mediocrity and we all accept this as if we are under a Doctor Who type trance.

What we never hear is how many clubs make a loss each month. What we close our ears to is salary caps and reduced transfer fees citing human rights, restrictions of trade etc. But the basic facts are that none of our clubs can really afford the salary bill and the players are taking too much.

It’s not at certain clubs it is at every club. If you cannot pay the PAYE bill every month you are paying too much money in salaries – unless you are a football club.

The big issue is that no one knows how to deal with the problem and the owners of Chelsea (in the past) and Manchester City have done nothing but damage the game by increasing transfer sums and wages across the board. If you support these clubs I cannot deny that I would want to be where you are now rather than where you have been and stuff the consequences. After all if it is not our club they’ll buy a competitor. But we need to have some regulation brought in quickly to help out the game before the rot bites too deeply.

It is not the Premier League that needs to make the decision, but they can certainly help, it is FIFA. They should be looking to tackle this problem where the whole wealth of the game is drawn out by the players. Please don’t get me wrong I think that players should be well rewarded for the window of opportunity that they have to perform at the highest level but if they earned what the currently do in a week over a month instead would they really have a different life when they finish playing? Granted they would be poorer but how much money do they really need?

People were outraged over Fred Goodwin’s pension and for getting RBS into trouble but people don’t get as incensed over John Terry’s wages after his recent performances. Who earns more? I’ll leave you to decide.  Ashley Cole gets continual stick over comments he made in a book but he only said what all the players come to feel, encouraged by agents, press speculation, former players and the entourage.

If the home players think about it they would not want to bankrupt a club on these shores. But one in another Country? Who cares? That is exactly our problem with huge numbers of players importing themselves to our shores with no in bred loyalties to our domestic game. That is the problem that should be examined before a number of our teams disintegrate and melt down before our very eyes. I’m praying it’s not my team!

Lambert Chapman LLP’s Paul Short reviews the Pre Budget Report

I am advised that our net debt, as a proportion of GDP, is at its highest level since the Napoleonic war and the Second World War.  At least then we had the excuse that we have saved Europe from domination by Napoleon and the world from domination by Hitler.  Now we are here as a simple consequence of Government incompetence and profligacy. 

Even now,  Labour does not get it.  We will not get out of trouble by trying to tax the rich (whoever they are) and giving bribes to the less well off.  The world is a different place from the 1970’s, when Labour last tried to increase tax rates.  The bankers will get around the 50% tax on bonuses.  Business owners will simply reduce income until the top rate of tax falls.  Others may well emigrate from the UK so that we get nothing at all.  The reality is that people are much more mobile these days and more people can change their tax jurisdiction, if they so wish.

As usual, the Government have exacerbated the problem by their own actions.  By having a low rate of capital gains tax of 18%, they have given a much needed boost to the off-shore tax avoidance industry and, indeed, there will be plenty of schemes on UK soil to convert income into capital. 

There will be plenty of work for me to do over the coming months but I am still fearful about where this country is going under this shower (that’s the Government, not the weather).

Lambert Chapman LLP’s John Smith-Daye reviews the Pre Budget Report

The PBR brought back many memories of the past – I can only just recall being as excited (not!) by the delivery of a speech by a politician, one John Major,  and if “Spitting Image” had still been around, they would no doubt have broadcast Mr Darling in a strong shade of grey. I’m sorry for being so cynical, it must be an age thing, but it was unlikely that he would introduce anything drastic so soon before an election.

So was there anything that excited me? Am I bothered that bingo duty is to be reduced from 22% to 20%? Do I care that pubs, restaurants and the like can continue to apply the VAT rate of 15% until 6am or the time that they close on 1^st Jan 2010, whichever is earlier? I think not.

I continue to be disappointed about the use of National Insurance as a method of tweaking Government income – why not just come clean, scrap it, and adjust the rate of income tax instead? Another increase being announced is not going to encourage employers to take on staff, or employees to work harder.

I had previously predicted that VAT would stay at 15%, and now have to eat my words – I really thought that the Government would try to sweeten the electorate by extending the reduction. It sticks in my throat  to admit that I’m wrong sometimes!

Lambert Chapman LLP’s Lisa Potter reviews the Pre Budget Report

A budget to hinder the UK’s recovery

This pre-budget report served only to protect the re-election chances of the current government and not to solve the economic disaster that we are in.   The report should have been about supporting recovery and not hindering it by taxing jobs and stretching out into the future any serious attempt to get to grips on the escalating levels of public borrowing.

It appears that the chancellor is trying to tax his way out of the situation instead of attacking public spending which is what is really needed.

Key points from report:

• VAT increase to 17.5% from 1^st Jan – personally surprised as I thought would be re-introduced at a higher level, maybe this will be a welcome gift from the new government?
• Additional taxation on banker’s bonuses set to generate £550m of extra revenue. Optimistic or pessimistic is the question, surely if you owned a business about to experience a super tax you simply wouldn’t pay the bonus but find a way round it as there is always one!
• A boost for the car industry following the introduction of the tax exemption of an electric car for company car purposes for 5 years and 100% capital allowances on electric vans.   A tick in the box for the green considerations but until heavy investment is made in the car industry to really develop these vehicles so that consumers want to buy them a tick is all it is.

Little to get excited about, a lot to worry about.

Lambert Chapman LLP’s 2009 Pre-Budget Report Feedback page

The Chancellor held his annual Pre Budget Report in the House of Commons today (9 December 2009) and set out a number of proposals that will be incorporated in his last Budget before the General Election next May. It also included details of the Bank Bonuses Tax which will apply immediately.

But what did you think? Sensible proposals from a solid Chancellor or a Pre Election Budget Report delaying any difficult issues till later. Leave us your comments below:

Lambert Chapman LLP’s Nick Forsyth reviews the Pre Budget Report

I’m afraid that I have no faith in either our Chancellor or his opposite number George Osborne. Both ended up shouting at each other today in the House but failed to provide any light of the end of a very dark tunnel. Vince Cable on the other hand provided a raft of interesting and difficult questions which the Chancellor began to answer in a very quiet voice. He appeared to be in difficulty so Radio 5 kindly spared him and asked John Pienaar his opinion on the speech itself.

Unfortunately this attitude sums up the state of the nation. When someone asks a decent question we skip away to avoid hearing the answer – however hopeless it might be – showing a level of disrespect to the questioner. In this case a man who appears to be head and shoulders above the ability of the two men likely to be sparring for the role come May 2010. A report for bingo and boilers suggested Mr Cable; bingo summing up the level of borrowing under Darling and boilers the scrappage scheme for our Prime Minister? Sorry, that’s an election!  

Having listened to Mr Darling it all seemed to be a bit of an inconvenience in having to make the report as in isolation everything is fine and we’re offering lots of support to those needing jobs. How these could be paid for was difficult to fathom but thankfully the retraining costs will come from the Bankers Bonus tax which was rapidly thought up in the last few days.

Does this mean that there would be no retraining if  Bank’s toed the line and did not pay bonuses or was it down to the fact that they will pay bonuses that allowed the Chancellor the opportunity to retrain? What happens now if the Banks decide they won’t pay bonuses? Is the retraining cancelled or do we borrow more money?

When we are dealing with clients who are inexperienced in running a business we have to ask these sorts of questions to make a proposal credible before drafting the figures. This Government have been in power since 1997 with consistency at the Treasury so how can they appear so naive in their pronouncements? Mr Darling attacked Mr Osborne for not mentioning once the word growth in his comments. Yet Mr Darling, along with an inexperienced business owner, appears to have a sales line that shows that he will just about get out of jail if it comes off but his record on predictions  is awful, or maybe worse than that!

These challenges on figures are aimed at getting the banker’s confidence in them as a business owner whilst creating a desire to lend to them. I cannot think of a single banker I know that would lend our Chancellor money because he is running an ailing vessel that is leaking money and doing little about turning things around. Yet he believes that banks should be lending more to businesses without ever setting out any criteria for doing so such as robust management, ability to repay, in tune with the market place and profitable.

What we heard is that payment programme schemes are being rolled on to allow businesses in difficulties more time to pay in the hope that they get finances sorted and that banks should be helping with that process. We never heard the profit word or positive cashflow being mentioned. Consequently the general public at large believe that bankers are criminals for not lending to businesses that are not viable because the Government is telling them that they should lend to “business” rather than “viable business”.

What increasingly worries me is that Messrs Brown and Darling don’t appear to understand this concept either for if they did then surely they would pass out these vibes. They might also have already started the task that awaits the unfortunate person who wins the next election by looking at expenditures and cutting them rather than compiling lists of individuals to “name and shame” (words used by Mr Brown on Monday) if their salaries are over £150,000.

If this starts in the public sector how long before Limited Company accounts have a similar statement? Surely the problem is a result of those offering the jobs not those taking them. They are the ones that should be shamed not the office holder. I firmly believe that the current accounts disclosure is sufficiently embarrassing to some of our clients and if we start off down this line where does it end? Mandatory P60 disclosures on Facebook?

It is time for an end to this nonsense. If Gordon Brown is the public servant he believes himself to be he should pop down the Mall tomorrow and tell Her Majesty about the forthcoming election before driving round to the House and dissolving Parliament. Things are tough and we need action. Whoever wins has to deliver harsh cuts so let’s stop pussyfooting around.

Businesses all around our country have had to do this so why not those example setters in Parliament. If our Country were a football club we’d risk losing 10 points for going into administration (can this be applied in the World Cup?) and if we were a business another six months of ignoring the problem might prove fatal – but Countries don’t go bust do they?

What’s the capital of Iceland? About 6 pence in late 2008 if I remember rightly!   

Lambert Chapman LLP’s Chris Harman reviews the Pre Budget Report

I am having difficulty working out where Mr Darling thinks we are and where I think we are.  I had expected a tough PBR with swingeing cuts in public sector spending, cuts in benefits and hard but short and sharp increases in taxes.  I feel the nation would have winced, maybe squealed, but would have probably kept a stiff upper lip, taken the medicine and worked through.  It seems to me that the levels of borrowing are such that a few £billion here or there do not make a difference anymore.  Indeed, we were told that the decisions are being made from a position of strength.  I shudder to think what a position of weakness would be.

I am wondering what affect the windfall tax on bankers’ bonuses will have?  Will it start to drive banks from our shores or will they threaten to move, but stay, because the people with the skills they need are here and the costs and upheaval of moving is not worth it?  I also wonder how the economics of the windfall tax will work because I see it that we, the nation, are shareholders in many banks, so is it us helping to pay a tax that will be paid back to us?

I note the “drive” to encourage people to go “green” with electrically driven cars.  The emission level tax bands are being moved so there will be increased tax charges for many company car drivers.  This is likely to encourage some company car drivers to give up their company car, take a cash salary adjustment and buy their own vehicle.  Maybe, it will be an electrically driven one, in which case I can see that when there are enough such cars, there will be a tax imposed on them because our Government will have worked out that to generate electricity you have to use other sources of fuel. 

I await the Spring Budget to see if it addresses our nation’s problems as I thought that the PBR would. 

Lambert Chapman LLP’s Nigel Whittle reviews the Pre Budget Report

The Pre-Budget Report for 2009 was awaited with trepidation.

I was looking forward to a clearly laid out plan of how the Government’s burgeoning deficit was to be addressed in the coming years.  Sadly, the timing of the election seemed to have deferred any real attempt to deal with this overbearing problem.

Confidence in the economy from the general population, let alone our peers within the world cannot be restored unless we know that the Government is serious in tackling its over-spending. 

Taxation can only be increased so much before we become a country where people will not want to live and work to their maximum potential.  This, very simply means that Government spending must be brought under control.  I understand that this cannot be done immediately and any change will affect output in the economy, employment and industrial activity.  However, unless there is a clear plan that reduces the deficit over a sensible period of time, the affect on the economy for the medium to long term will be extremely damaging.

The individual measures of this Budget are unremarkable, with the easy target of national insurance being increased by another ½% to add to the overall tax take.  This would make some sense if it was being used to reduce the Government deficit, but when it is being spent on further increases in services, it makes little sense to me.

Otherwise, a rather uninteresting Pre-Budget Report in respect of specific taxation legislation.  The major emphasis will remain the previous Budget measures to increase taxes significantly for 2010/2011 which will concentrate everybody’s efforts into reducing their personal marginal tax rate rather than maximising their gross earnings.  Let us hope that post-election, the serious work of restoring a healthy economy will commence.

Lambert Chapman LLP make Pre-Budget Report predictions

On our main site we produced an article making predictions on the forthcoming Pre-Budget Report. Our material came from a number of Lambert Chapman personnel and the full text of their thoughts is included below. We would be delighted if you wished to add your own comments underneath.

Chris Harman 

Colin Timms, Financial Secretary to the Treasury recently said ‘It is right that taxpayers pay their fair share of tax.  However, there are a minority who continue to seek ways to avoid paying their share.  This is unacceptable.  It is unfair on the majority of taxpayers, undermines fiscal sustainability, and reduces funding for public services.  This Government will not tolerate tax avoidance schemes or tax evasion in any form, and will act promptly to tackle both of these’.

 From that statement which includes tax avoidance I must put as one of my top predictions that:

• HMRC will take the view that many things that are tax planning will, in HMRC view, be considered as tax avoidance and therefore many simple and standard tax planning actions will be disallowed. 

Other predictions:

• Corporation Tax : Small Companies rate to stay at 21%.  Main rate to stay at 28%.
• Income Tax : A 60% rate to be introduced for income above £250,000.  Environmental issue ; People who commute to work in their car and who are provided with free parking by their employer will have a taxable benefit on the provision of the parking space unless they also transport a passenger to their workplace.
• Capital Gains Tax : The rate to increase to at least 25%.  The Exemption to elect for a second home to be a Principle Private Residence (PPR) to be abolished.  PPR to be exempt only up to a fixed level of gain and any PPR gain over that level to be taxed at a rate that is less than the full CGT rate. 
• IHT : The £nil rate band to increase to £750,000.  A 50% band on Estates over £5,000,000.  Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief to be capped.
• NIC : No changes.
• Stamp Duty : The £175,000 starting level for residential houses to be extended to £200,000 w.e.f 1/12/2009.
• VAT : The 15% rate will continue until 30th June 2010 from when it will be 20%.  The reduced rate of 5% for domestic heating will be increased to 10% w.e.f 1st January 2010 (I must get my next lot of oil ordered!)
• Wealth Tax : A new tax which will be 0.25% on assets, anywhere in the world, owned by a U.K. domiciled resident where their Open Market Value at 31st December each year exceeds £5,000,000.  The rate will be increased or the excess level will be reduced in the tax year during which people emigrate.
• The proposed alignment of our fiscal year to be moved to a calendar year and therefore inline with much of the world.
• Beer and spirit duties : The duties will remain the same but steps will be put in place to set minimum selling prices so that supermarkets can’t sell cheap alcohol.
• Road Fund Licence : Increases on ’unfriendly vehicles’.  The lowering of the emission bands for ‘friendly vehicles’.
• Funding for the building of more Universities to start in 2013.  This will be because more people will have to have a ‘degree’ before they can undertake their chosen work* and will also be seen as giving the Construction Industry a boost following on from the Olympics building work.  Measures will be brought in so that ‘one man band’ and ‘labour only’ construction workers will have to be employees and not self employed if they are to work on any such projects.
• The ‘remittance basis’ for U.K. residents who are not U.K. domiciled will apply to those who have been U.K. resident for five of the last seven years (instead of 7 of the last 9 years).
• Long term unemployed without any qualifications will be offered a cash inducement to travel to interviews and jobs (for the first year of work). Those who have studied and worked will have to get on with it without any help). 

I heard on the radio this morning that all new nurses will, by 2013 (funny that is after the Olympics!) have to have a degree before they can become a nurse.  I know that they have to undergo learning and need a degree or a diploma to be a nurse (they can start nurse training with no qualifications), but, the radio report only mentioned a degree so is a diploma out of the window?  Isn’t nursing a vocation?  I can foresee other trades will be pushed towards having to have qualifications i.e a butcher needing something in the field of chemistry combined with biology!

Gill Philpott and the Tax Team

Capital gains tax rate to rise to 25% to cut the differential between income tax and capital gains tax which has in the last year led to tax payers seeking to tax events as capital rather than income

To assist the property market the retention of the £175,000 Stamp Duty Land Tax exemption

Introduction of anti avoidance legislation aimed at removing tax advantages of employee benefit arrangements

Another deferral on the introduction of the income shifting rules due to difficulties in drafting the legislation

A measure to penalise ‘fat cat’ city bonuses – perhaps in the form of a punative National Insurance Rate,

and of course the perenial favourites years measures to promote green issues and measures to penalise the drinkers and smokers and drivers of fuel guzzling cars

Something we would like to see but don’t think will be introduced profit averaging for all businesses and not just farmers and artists to help businesses even out profits, tax and therefore cashflow between the good and bad years.

Mike Carabine

Mike Carabine

The standard VAT rate is due to go back up to 17.5% from 1 January 2010. However I predict the increase will be delayed 1 or 2 months but will rise to 18% (possibly even as far as 20%).

Potentially reducing the range of supplies qualifying for VAT zero-rating, blaming EC legislation whilst increasing the amount coming into Treasury coffers.

More attacks on tax avoidance schemes.

Corporation Tax for small companies to rise to 22% as was meant to happen from 1 April 2009. Rates for large companies to continue to fall.

Nigel Whittle 

Increase the Capital Gains Tax rate to 30%

Lisa Potter 

I believe that Government will be playing their cards close to their chest.  With an election around the corner they would be suicidal to make any radical announcements beyond those already in place without further risking their chances of being re-elected.    

 The one announcement to keep an eye out for will be the VAT rate from 1st January, I believe that this may be announced at a higher rate than the 17.5% previously in place.   Regardless of what the rate is, businesses will once again suffer from the inconvenience of the administration burden as a result of the change and many will remain confused as to what income falls under what VAT regime.

 I believe that the 50% higher rate will be fully implemented for forthcoming tax periods.   As for corporation tax I would like to see some changes to the rate for smaller companies, larger company’s have benefited from decrease in rates whilst the smaller company rate has increased.  In light of the current climate this should be addressed to assist those businesses that are in more need of the assistance.      

Overall I think it will be a non-eventful Pre-Budget report based more on the protection of their re-election chances than changes to legislation that will lose them votes.

Richard Thomson

With the next election looming, I think they will be looking for increasing support from voters whilst trying to increase revenue, by delayed measures and targeting higher earners.

Therefore unlikely to increase VAT, Corp tax etc in short term.

Likely to have notional ‘feel good’ announcements:

• Gift to pensioners – extra winter payments,   tax benefits etc.
• Revision of tax credits with increase to lower incomes.
• Further adjustment to ISA’s and encouragement of savings.

And will also have:

Increasing tax on wealthy – perhaps reducing the £150K 50% band.

Increasing NIC on high earners – increasing rate, upper band.

Focusing on Green issues and tax incentives, with additional tax charges for those not being green.

Increase to CGT rate of 18%, which is relatively low.

Revision to IHT to assist middle England – which as house prices have fallen, won’t be as dramatic as many claim.

and of course:

preventing Income shifting, introducing NIC on close company divi’s, increasing tax avoidance schemes etc.

Nick Forsyth asks “How much is enough” when it comes to concert ticket disbursements?

I’ve been buying tickets for over 30 years and in that time I’ve come to consider that I might have been abused more as each year passes. I know how much I’ve paid as I have a collection of programmes including ticket stubs and I can tell you that a Wembley Empire Pool concert cost £4 a ticket in 1978 and a heck of a lot more these days. What I find really disconcerting is not the price of the ticket but the add ons that seem to increase in both value and number as time passes.

At one time as I remember you would get charged a fee that then became a fee per ticket and then started to increase in value. You then had postage added onto the cost as a further extra and now you can add “to your door before the kettle boils” for another fiver.

Last night I bought tickets to see Billy Connolly with Ticketmaster and had two options, post for a fee or a link for the same fee. I chose the link and have received it by email. What this allows you to do is to print off your own tickets and take them to the concert. I’ve been involved in a concert with paper tickets and it is really scary. Some people have a normal looking ticket and you have a piece of A4 paper. I didn’t apply for them so when I was handed my piece of A4 I was ready to go home but we walked in without any trouble – in fact it was as easy as when I saw David Lee Roth at Hammersmith and we walked in through the main entrance – having paid a tout – without any tickets at all behind a member of the show security, making people with tickets wait whilst we got in, to stand in the stalls.

The more I think about it the more it occurs to me that the link is more effective but also close to a con. Surely I am using my own paper and toner cartridge to print this ticket and depending upon the colours it might cost me more to print it off than the fee I’ve paid. So it boils down to whether the link is cost effective? If its price mirrors the cost of postage then clearly not, but then again it is Ticketmaster so you expect premium pricing.

I’ve also noticed that certain ticket prices have shown a huge hike recently. Possibly because a lot of the artists I consider seeing are getting on a bit and their pensions aren’t doing too well on a 0.5% base rate but then again maybe not. Surely the industry wants to get its act together and look at setting a reasonable price for the event to include all these disbursements so that we the general public don’t feel cheated when buying tickets to see them.